WORKERS OF THE INDUSTRY COLLIERY, DHANBAD V. MANAGEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY COLLIERY INSC 75; AIR 1953 SC 88; 1953 SCR 428

                        WORKERS OF THE INDUSTRY COLLIERY, DHANBAD V. MANAGEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY COLLIERY INSC

FACTS- The date was October 13, 1949 when the workers filed a strike notice under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a one-day all-India strike on November 7, 1949, out of which issue there were 16 demands made. The notice was given to the proper authorities which included the Conciliation Officer (Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad). The Regional Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer) was served with the notice on October 15, 1949, for further conciliation proceedings as under Section 20(1). On 22nd October 1949, the Commissioner held the proceedings but the appellants did not want to join in because they said it was futile.The Commissioner forwarded his report on October 22, 1949, to the Chief Labour Commissioner in New Delhi along with a request to inform the Government about the position.The report was received by the Chief Labour Commissioner on October 25, 1949, and would only be forwarded to the Central Government (Ministry of Labour) on November 17, 1949. On November 7, 1949, the appellants held their one-day strike as planned.The employer stated that the strike occurred while conciliation proceedings were pending and that it was therefore illegal. This strike was regarded as illegal under Section 8(2) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948 by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on February 2, 1950. The appellants went to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal against this, and on April 24, 1950, the Tribunal passed the same order.

ISSUES- 1)Whether the appellants' November 7, 1949, one-day strike was unlawful under Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since it occurred while conciliation proceedings were pending? 2)Does the conciliation proceeding terminate with the submission of the Conciliation Officer's report, or with its receipt by the appropriate government? 3)Are rights of workers lost due to administrative lapses and can the government or its officers make such delays a ground for declaring the strike unlawful?

HOLDINGS- The court maintained the rulings of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the Regional Labour Commissioner, concluding that the November 7, 1949, strike was unlawful since it took place while conciliation proceedings were still pending.

RATIONALE- The judges treated the law as a carefully constructed machinery into which this had been severed machinery. Its sections-20, 22, 24-coagulated at the level of the law and created gears and levers to make sure that one wielded a mighty tool for the workers, strike action, in a manner responsible and constructed. The law insisted that the process of conciliation should end only when the report was actually received by the government: a very clear and even-handed arrangement for both sides, workers and employer. Section 20(1) deems proceedings in conciliation to start on receipt of notice of strike by the Conciliation Officer. Section 20(2)(b) states that the conciliation proceedings are concluded only on actual receipt of the report of the Conciliation Officer by the "appropriate government." Section 22(1)(d) prohibits a strike during the pendency of such proceedings and for seven days thereafter. Judges used to summarize that the word "received" in Section 20(2)(b) clearly denoted the actual receipt of the report by the government.